To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

MONEY TRANSFERRED
Health Center investigates $28,000 budget cut
By Kathy McDonald
Assistant Citv Editor
The Student Health Center and counseling services committee is currently investigating the cutting of $28,000 from the Health Center budget by lames Appleton, vice president for student affairs, largely because of concern expressed by the Student Senate.
One of the complaints expressed bv senators is that they had no input into Appleton's decision last May to transfer money from health services to Black Student Services and Residential Life.
"A management team composed of the heads of subdivisions within Student Affairs met to discuss the change.” said Ralph Kam, a graduate senator and head of the committee looking into the issue. "The chairman of the Student
Senate was invited, so theoretically there should've been student input.
"But elections were going on at the same time, so it didn't work out.
"It's the principle of it (that is cause for the concern),'' he said. "It's the principle of using student health fees and applying them to something else, of using fee money to cover items traditionally funded bv the general fund."
The general fund, which comes from tuition and grants, is distributed to individual departments for their yearly budgets. This year, the general fund was cut.
"The universitv made everv-one cut their budgets," Kam said. "Academic departments, such as the English department, had to cut them bv 2.5 percent and non-academic un-
its, such as Student Affairs, had to make a 3.5 percent (cut)."
Kam said it was impossible for the Black Student Union and Residential Life to make such cuts because they had a minimal amount of monev with which to work.
"It could've meant that there wrould be some salary cuts or lay-offs," he said.
So these two serv ices did not experience the 3.5 percent cut. As it turned out, Kam said, the Black Student Union and Residential Life needed even more money — about 528,000.
Since the Health Center is not financed by the general fund, it did not need to cut its budget.
Kam said the Health Center was the "onlv other place he (Appleton) could get the $28,000. If he hadn't taken it from Student Health, he
(M% trojan
Volume LXXXIX. Number 35 University of Southern California Tuesday. November 4. 1980
w'ould've had to have taken even more money from the other units under Student Affairs.”
The money was then put into a pool, and needv units under Student Affairs can withdraw from it.
The health budget cut "slowed service down a little bit," said Coralie Mulholand, business manager of Student Health. However, no services were cut, she said.
Kam and Mulholand said the S28.000 cut was not significant in light of Health Service's S2 million annual budget.
The only significant effect of the cut was a delav in hiring personnel, Mulholand said. Staff members were not hired during the summer as thev usuallv are, but at the beginning of the semester. Mulholand said the Health Center now "has as many people as we can hold."
"We are totally student-sup-ported," she said. "If enrollment wouldn't have been up, it (the cut) would've hurt."
This is the first time a budget cut for the center was neces-sarv, and it mav be continued in the future.
"I know I can plan on at least a 528,000 cut annuallv." Vlul-
Who do you intend to vote for in the presidential election?
OVERALL REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS INDEPENDENTS, NO PARTY
MEN
WOMEN
CARTER
36%
3
61
30
27
45
REAGAN
32%
71
3
33
38
25
ANDERSON CLARK
15%
9
17
20
18
12
1%
6
UNDECIDED
16%
11
19
17
13
18
Who do you think will win the election?
OVERALL
REPUBLICAN
DEMOCRATS
INDEPENDENTS
CARTER
31%
23
39
27
REAGAN
46%
63
30
57
UNDECIDED
23%
14
31
17
Are you supporting Carter or Reagan because you didn't think your alternative candidate could win?
OVERALL
YES 65%
NO 35%
REAGAN SUPPORTERS YES 52%
NO 48%
CARTER SUPPORTERS
YES 75%
NO 25%
Did you (Carter and Reagan supporters) consider voting for a third party candidate?
YES 60%
NO 40%
If yes, which candidate?
ANDERSON 82%
CLARK 18%
holand said.
"He (Appleton) made no guarantee that it wouldn’t be more than that next year," Kam said. Appleton was not available for comment.
Kam's committee plans to make a complete report to the Student Senate at their Wednesdav, Nov. 19 meeting. He expects the senate to make a resolution taking a stand on the issue.
Student poll shows Carter support weak
The presidential campaign comes to an end today with President Carter holding onto a 4-point lead over Ronald Reagan among USC students.
Random telephoning of 120 students showed that 36 percent of those polled intend to vote for Carter, 32 percent for Reagan and 15 percent for John Anderson. About 16 percent were still undecided as recently as Monday.
Most students do not reallv prefer any of the candidates.
An overwhelming 76 percent said they were not satisfied with the choice of candidates.
Although Carter is the slight preference, 46 percent of the students predict Reagan will win. Only 31 percent believe Carter will be re-elected.
But if women had their way he would be. Bv a 45-25 margin women prefer Carter to Reagan. Men on the other hand support Reagan— 38-27.
John Anderson appears to have been the victim of a Catch-22 situation. Although 60 percent of Carter and Reagan supporters said they considered voting for Anderson, 65 percent of those said they won't actually vote for him because he has no chance of winning.
Voters do not feel that the candidates addressed the issues during the campaign. Onlv 39 percent said the candidates' stands on the issues were clear.
In an election this close, the independents could determine the outcome. Reagan has a slight edge over Carter among this group with Anderson coming in third.
Most students are resigned to a Reagan victory, although manv are less than thrilled with that possibility.
Panelist analyzes Carter-Reagan debate performance
Says questions not really answered, event still a success
By james Grant
Feature Editor Last week’s Carter-Reagan debate remains one of the most influential media events of the presidential campaign. One hundred and twenty million people watched the debate, according to a recent New York Times survey.
In a recent interview, William Hilliard, one of the four panelists for the debate and assistant managing editor of the Oregonian, analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the event and the candidates w'ho participated in it.
"I don't think either candidate really answered the questions. But the debate did succeed in showing how- the candidates compare in a joint appearance, even though the questions were not answered directly," Hiliiard said.
Hilliard said that there was no winner or loser in the debate but that Reagan gained more out of the exposure than
the President did. "Carter seemed more nervous than Reagan . . . especially at the last segment of the second round. Reagan seemed to show more poise," Hilliard said.
"Carter seemed more serious and concerned about the problems facing the country but seemed a little personal in his remarks," Hilliard said. "On more than one occasion. Carter turned to Governor Reagan as if to show displeasure with his remarks," he said.
The Women's League of Voters (sponsors of the debate) selected Hilliard as one of the four panelists after consulting editors and publishers from across the country, Reagan, President Carter and the Neiman Foundation of Journalism at Harvard.
Hilliard said that all four panelists were disappointed that their respective questions had not been answered more specificially. "We (the panelists) de-
signed the questions to be as specific as possible in an effort to generate specific answers. Unfortunately, neither of the candidates had an extensive background in debating and, as a result, had to stick to the manuscript prepared for them at the outset," Hilliard said.
"In fact, I sometimes felt as if the candidates were fitting the questions to their answers instead of the other way around," Hilliard said.
The panelists met the day before the debate to decide which issues they wanted most to get the candidates to answer. "W'e tried to choose topics which had not alreadv been adequately answered elsewhere during the campaign.
"We chose defense, war and peace, the economy, the urban problem and the hostages. In deciding who had the best interest in w’hat, it was decided that I would cover the urban and race rela-
tions and Social Security question," Hilliard said.
"I was disappointed with both responses to mv question (on the race relations issue), but it was to be expected. Both candidates spoke in broad terms hoping that the problem would be solved. They did not want to lose the large segment of black voters but at the same time did not want to alienate the conservatives either,” he said.
Hilliard rejects the criticism of those who desired more follow-up questions in an effort to pin down the candidates on the issues. "I don't think that more follow-up questions would have given a better view of the candidates' stands on the issues. This has been attempted in past debates but the candidates did not answer the questions any more directly. You just see more of the panelists," Hilliard said.
(Continued on page 11)

MONEY TRANSFERRED
Health Center investigates $28,000 budget cut
By Kathy McDonald
Assistant Citv Editor
The Student Health Center and counseling services committee is currently investigating the cutting of $28,000 from the Health Center budget by lames Appleton, vice president for student affairs, largely because of concern expressed by the Student Senate.
One of the complaints expressed bv senators is that they had no input into Appleton's decision last May to transfer money from health services to Black Student Services and Residential Life.
"A management team composed of the heads of subdivisions within Student Affairs met to discuss the change.” said Ralph Kam, a graduate senator and head of the committee looking into the issue. "The chairman of the Student
Senate was invited, so theoretically there should've been student input.
"But elections were going on at the same time, so it didn't work out.
"It's the principle of it (that is cause for the concern),'' he said. "It's the principle of using student health fees and applying them to something else, of using fee money to cover items traditionally funded bv the general fund."
The general fund, which comes from tuition and grants, is distributed to individual departments for their yearly budgets. This year, the general fund was cut.
"The universitv made everv-one cut their budgets," Kam said. "Academic departments, such as the English department, had to cut them bv 2.5 percent and non-academic un-
its, such as Student Affairs, had to make a 3.5 percent (cut)."
Kam said it was impossible for the Black Student Union and Residential Life to make such cuts because they had a minimal amount of monev with which to work.
"It could've meant that there wrould be some salary cuts or lay-offs," he said.
So these two serv ices did not experience the 3.5 percent cut. As it turned out, Kam said, the Black Student Union and Residential Life needed even more money — about 528,000.
Since the Health Center is not financed by the general fund, it did not need to cut its budget.
Kam said the Health Center was the "onlv other place he (Appleton) could get the $28,000. If he hadn't taken it from Student Health, he
(M% trojan
Volume LXXXIX. Number 35 University of Southern California Tuesday. November 4. 1980
w'ould've had to have taken even more money from the other units under Student Affairs.”
The money was then put into a pool, and needv units under Student Affairs can withdraw from it.
The health budget cut "slowed service down a little bit," said Coralie Mulholand, business manager of Student Health. However, no services were cut, she said.
Kam and Mulholand said the S28.000 cut was not significant in light of Health Service's S2 million annual budget.
The only significant effect of the cut was a delav in hiring personnel, Mulholand said. Staff members were not hired during the summer as thev usuallv are, but at the beginning of the semester. Mulholand said the Health Center now "has as many people as we can hold."
"We are totally student-sup-ported," she said. "If enrollment wouldn't have been up, it (the cut) would've hurt."
This is the first time a budget cut for the center was neces-sarv, and it mav be continued in the future.
"I know I can plan on at least a 528,000 cut annuallv." Vlul-
Who do you intend to vote for in the presidential election?
OVERALL REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS INDEPENDENTS, NO PARTY
MEN
WOMEN
CARTER
36%
3
61
30
27
45
REAGAN
32%
71
3
33
38
25
ANDERSON CLARK
15%
9
17
20
18
12
1%
6
UNDECIDED
16%
11
19
17
13
18
Who do you think will win the election?
OVERALL
REPUBLICAN
DEMOCRATS
INDEPENDENTS
CARTER
31%
23
39
27
REAGAN
46%
63
30
57
UNDECIDED
23%
14
31
17
Are you supporting Carter or Reagan because you didn't think your alternative candidate could win?
OVERALL
YES 65%
NO 35%
REAGAN SUPPORTERS YES 52%
NO 48%
CARTER SUPPORTERS
YES 75%
NO 25%
Did you (Carter and Reagan supporters) consider voting for a third party candidate?
YES 60%
NO 40%
If yes, which candidate?
ANDERSON 82%
CLARK 18%
holand said.
"He (Appleton) made no guarantee that it wouldn’t be more than that next year," Kam said. Appleton was not available for comment.
Kam's committee plans to make a complete report to the Student Senate at their Wednesdav, Nov. 19 meeting. He expects the senate to make a resolution taking a stand on the issue.
Student poll shows Carter support weak
The presidential campaign comes to an end today with President Carter holding onto a 4-point lead over Ronald Reagan among USC students.
Random telephoning of 120 students showed that 36 percent of those polled intend to vote for Carter, 32 percent for Reagan and 15 percent for John Anderson. About 16 percent were still undecided as recently as Monday.
Most students do not reallv prefer any of the candidates.
An overwhelming 76 percent said they were not satisfied with the choice of candidates.
Although Carter is the slight preference, 46 percent of the students predict Reagan will win. Only 31 percent believe Carter will be re-elected.
But if women had their way he would be. Bv a 45-25 margin women prefer Carter to Reagan. Men on the other hand support Reagan— 38-27.
John Anderson appears to have been the victim of a Catch-22 situation. Although 60 percent of Carter and Reagan supporters said they considered voting for Anderson, 65 percent of those said they won't actually vote for him because he has no chance of winning.
Voters do not feel that the candidates addressed the issues during the campaign. Onlv 39 percent said the candidates' stands on the issues were clear.
In an election this close, the independents could determine the outcome. Reagan has a slight edge over Carter among this group with Anderson coming in third.
Most students are resigned to a Reagan victory, although manv are less than thrilled with that possibility.
Panelist analyzes Carter-Reagan debate performance
Says questions not really answered, event still a success
By james Grant
Feature Editor Last week’s Carter-Reagan debate remains one of the most influential media events of the presidential campaign. One hundred and twenty million people watched the debate, according to a recent New York Times survey.
In a recent interview, William Hilliard, one of the four panelists for the debate and assistant managing editor of the Oregonian, analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the event and the candidates w'ho participated in it.
"I don't think either candidate really answered the questions. But the debate did succeed in showing how- the candidates compare in a joint appearance, even though the questions were not answered directly," Hiliiard said.
Hilliard said that there was no winner or loser in the debate but that Reagan gained more out of the exposure than
the President did. "Carter seemed more nervous than Reagan . . . especially at the last segment of the second round. Reagan seemed to show more poise," Hilliard said.
"Carter seemed more serious and concerned about the problems facing the country but seemed a little personal in his remarks," Hilliard said. "On more than one occasion. Carter turned to Governor Reagan as if to show displeasure with his remarks," he said.
The Women's League of Voters (sponsors of the debate) selected Hilliard as one of the four panelists after consulting editors and publishers from across the country, Reagan, President Carter and the Neiman Foundation of Journalism at Harvard.
Hilliard said that all four panelists were disappointed that their respective questions had not been answered more specificially. "We (the panelists) de-
signed the questions to be as specific as possible in an effort to generate specific answers. Unfortunately, neither of the candidates had an extensive background in debating and, as a result, had to stick to the manuscript prepared for them at the outset," Hilliard said.
"In fact, I sometimes felt as if the candidates were fitting the questions to their answers instead of the other way around," Hilliard said.
The panelists met the day before the debate to decide which issues they wanted most to get the candidates to answer. "W'e tried to choose topics which had not alreadv been adequately answered elsewhere during the campaign.
"We chose defense, war and peace, the economy, the urban problem and the hostages. In deciding who had the best interest in w’hat, it was decided that I would cover the urban and race rela-
tions and Social Security question," Hilliard said.
"I was disappointed with both responses to mv question (on the race relations issue), but it was to be expected. Both candidates spoke in broad terms hoping that the problem would be solved. They did not want to lose the large segment of black voters but at the same time did not want to alienate the conservatives either,” he said.
Hilliard rejects the criticism of those who desired more follow-up questions in an effort to pin down the candidates on the issues. "I don't think that more follow-up questions would have given a better view of the candidates' stands on the issues. This has been attempted in past debates but the candidates did not answer the questions any more directly. You just see more of the panelists," Hilliard said.
(Continued on page 11)